Musumba v NCBA Bank Kenya Plc (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 634 (KLR)

The Claimant did not deny authorizing the transactions. As checker in the maker-checker control, he was required to act as a second eye and verify that transactions met basic requirements. He conceded he did not confirm whether customers had existing loans, and his own investigation statements confirmed the debits did not settle loan arrears. The Policy on Handling of Inactive Accounts, whose scope covers 'all points of customer account activation input', applied to his environment. His failure to exercise diligence exposed the bank to financial risk, constituting negligence justifying termination.

Though the Notice to Show Cause did not specify the transactions, they were disclosed during investigations and in the 8th November 2023 invitation to the hearing. The Claimant confirmed at the hearing he was comfortable proceeding without a representative and signed the minutes. The variance in the number of charges did not impair the hearing since he knew the allegations in advance. He also had access to the physical copy of the disciplinary proceedings, so absence of a recording did not impair his appeal.

Applying Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd & another v Gladys Muthoni, a discrimination claim must be supported by evidence. The Claimant adduced no admissible evidence that the two colleagues who received Notices to Show Cause were ultimately not sanctioned, nor that their conduct was of the same gravity. A mere assertion that others 'got a green light' without more cannot sustain a claim of differential treatment without reasonable distinction.

Compensatory damages under Section 49 cannot be sustained where termination was for valid reason and through fair process. Reinstatement similarly fails. Damages for discrimination do not lie absent proof of discrimination. Consequently the entire Claim, including the injunction on the staff mortgage and loan facility, was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.